Brexit!! Yeah, it's a thing now..

Robert said:
Kenna spoke in an interview before three* improvised explosive devices were found at separate transport hubs in London on Tuesday. At least two of the packages bore Irish stamps and postmarks.

No one has claimed responsibility but, on Wednesday, Ireland’s deputy prime minister, Simon Coveney, hinted that republican extremists were suspected by expressing “anger and embarrassment” at the “warped thinking” behind the packages.

--
* there were actually four if you include the controlled explosion at my old college yesterday. A slightly alarming development as Scotland was generally spared bomb attacks during the troubles.
Click to expand...
Update:
Detectives investigating devices sent to addresses in London and Glasgow have said a claim of responsibility has been made in the name of the "IRA".

Police Scotland and the Met said similar packages were sent in the past by Northern Ireland dissident groups.

Officers also revealed that one package may be unaccounted for.

The devices arrived on 5 and 6 March at the University of Glasgow, Waterloo Waterloo Station, and buildings near Heathrow Airport and London City Airport.
Click to expand...
The choice of wording leads me to suspect the detectives are not entirely convinced by the use of "IRA"

-EDIT-
Perhaps I misread the wording earlier.
They've updated the story again and it now says "a recognised codeword was used."
D1dKF7aXQAA3DZZ.jpg:large

Howard Marks' claim that a recognised codeword was "it's yer man McCann" notwithstanding, this does lend some credence to it being a group with ties to the IRA. On the other hand, who knows how many people have become aware of "recognised codewords" since the end of the troubles? Could still be anybody but I think the police, at least, are taking it a bit more seriously than I initially thought.

The false flag claims have already started which was predictable. Slightly less predictable was that the basis for some of the claims is "The IRA would never attack Scotland."
 
Last edited:
More on Labour preferring a deal over no deal:
May was hoping to win over some Labour MPs, having announced a £1.6bn towns fund and strengthened promises on workers’ rights last week.

But Labour sources suggested few had changed their minds, with the opportunity to extend article 50, which MPs will vote on on Thursday, removing the immediate threat of a no-deal Brexit and opening up the possibility of a softer deal.
Click to expand...
 
UK plan to trade with Commonwealth nations after Brexit is 'utter bollocks', former Australian PM says
'For Britain’s economic self-interest, as well as the wider political interests of the western community of nations, Britain should remain in the EU', Kevin Rudd argues
Claims Britain will be able to recuperate its trade losses with the EU by dealing with Commonwealth nations are “utter bollocks”, Australia‘s former prime minister has said.

Kevin Rudd said the idea trade deals with his country, Canada, New Zealand and India would make up for leaving the EU was “the nuttiest of the many nutty arguments” made by Brexit supporters.
 
For context, Wetherspoons is a UK-wide pub chain that, somewhat bizarrely, has been agitating for no-deal Brexit.
Yes, we now have high street boozers acting like political parties. Isn't that wonderful? They even posted a rather xenophobic booklet through my letterbox a few weeks back.
Anyway, the Daily Mash are taking the pish out of the situation:

The Wetherspoons customer’s guide to a no-deal Brexit
ARE you a pants-wetting Remoaner who’s worried about no-deal Brexit? Here Wetherspoons regular Norman Steele answers your questions at 10am with a pint.

Should I be worried about food shortages?

Fück off. We’ll grow our own food. All you need is soil and seeds, and male animals and lady animals. I wish Remoaners would stop overcomplicating things.
If there’s a short-term problem – which there won’t be – we can always do a Dunkirk and get our brave ‘little ships’ to go to a supermarket in Calais. I’m getting choked up just thinking about it.

Could there be civil unrest?

There will be if May’s traitor’s deal goes through. Me, Brian and Dave have agreed to make petrol bombs and do a riot. This is in no way bullshit pisshead bravado caused by 11 pints in Spoons.

Are we heading for an economic disaster? It certainly looks like it.

Project Fear 3.0, mate. Sony may be fücking off but we’ll just make better tellies. They’ll probably be totally interactive so you can shag Keeley Hawes in Bodyguard.

Should I start stockpiling medicines I need?

Nah. We’re a plucky, ‘can do’ nation. Make your own medicines from whatever you’ve got in the house. A few aspirins here, a bit of Benylin there. If you’re still feeling peaky have a few pints in Spoons.
In any case, we survived the war. Missing a few heart attack pills is nothing to this bulldog race who laughed in the face of U-boat attacks.

Why do you keep irrelevantly and offensively mentioning the war?

Because it’s the finest moment in our proud island history. Also I don’t know any other history because the kings-and-queens rubbish on History channel hasn’t got tanks or the SS.

No, seriously, what if I lose my job?

What’s the problem? More time to spend in Spoons.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
However, if you are not European, and you actually want to take over control of Ryanair, this has made things more difficult.
Click to expand...
Even if you are a specific type of European and don't want to take control but simply buy stock and attend the AGM, this makes things more difficult.
 
The vote on "no-deal" is tonight and the chancellor has today chipped in with his opinion during his Spring statement:
Leaving with no deal would mean significant disruption in the short and medium term and a smaller, less prosperous economy in the long term, than if we leave with a deal.

Higher unemployment, lower wages, higher prices in the shops.
Click to expand...
The far right of his own party still disagree with him.
 
EU says he don't care if UK comes back. UK wants to return and trusts that EU has changed and won't beat her anymore.
 
SO I heard May is claiming that if they do Brexit she's leaving "early".

How is that useful to anyone? The UK gets screwed and then she leaves (for everyone else to deal with the disaster)
or they don't accept Brexit and she stays and is a pain in everyone' ass.
 
cecilia said:
SO I heard May is claiming that if they do Brexit she's leaving "early".

How is that useful to anyone?
Click to expand...

Indeed, you wouldn't think it would be, would you?

However, like almost everything in this omnishambles, there's more to it than meets the eye. It certainly shines a light on just how self-serving most of the Tory party are.

For example, members of the ERG group (the far right of the Tory party who are promoting leaving with no agreement) have spent the last several weeks loudly protesting that they could not support May's deal under any circumstances due to the Irish "backstop".
Now May says she'll stand down if they agree to it.
Suddenly a bunch of them no longer see the backstop as that big a problem.
The only conclusion that one can draw from that is that the PM standing aside - and, presumably, one of their members stepping in - is far more important to them than the Brexity things they claim are important to them.
So, yeah, it's useful to those guys and she knows it, which is why she offered it.
 
Robert said:
This analogy tickled me:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1105904916411924480
Click to expand...
It's more like owning a pub, and getting into business with a cafe and a kebab shop and ending up with three license kebab cafes and not being able to say you want your pub to be a pub again because of the relationship. Do you leave and make the pub back into the kind of pub you dreamed of, or do you stay and let the other two guys outvote you? The citizens in theory own the country. Do they have the right to make decisions on how the country is run, or should that be a matter for trade negotiators and rubber stampers in a foreign country? That's all of it.

Getting out now can at least be done legally though, in a divorce there are always going to be arguments about who owes what to whom. However, if you stay (or sign a horrific deal) and it becomes smothering later then the only viable exit is probably by military means. Speaking of which, the former Greek Minister of Finance, Yanis Varoufakis said of May's "deal" it was the kind of deal that countries usually only sign after losing a war. Britain has a much stronger position than the politicians are willing to admit because they can make more from a united EU base than they can make from just the British. It's not about what's good for the UK, it's what's good for the very top of the pyramid. A bigger territory means a bigger income for the few that run it.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
The citizens in theory own the country. Do they have the right to make decisions on how the country is run, or should that be a matter for trade negotiators and rubber stampers in a foreign country? That's all of it.
Click to expand...
The exact same "logic" would also lead one to favor the United Kingdom leaving the World Trade Organization - as well as the United Nations, etc. Afterall, being in the World Trade Organization means that "evil dirty disgusting foreigners" can theoretically "outvote" the poor little United Kingdom. In fact, the only way to "take back the country" and "make Britain British again" is to cut off ALL trade with foreign nations.

Speaking of which, the former Greek Minister of Finance, Yanis Varoufakis said of May's "deal" it was the kind of deal that countries usually only sign after losing a war.
Click to expand...
Well, Varoufakis has been known for saying outrageously stupid shit just to get a headline. Nothing new here.

Britain has a much stronger position than the politicians are willing to admit because they can make more from a united EU base than they can make from just the British. It's not about what's good for the UK, it's what's good for the very top of the pyramid. A bigger territory means a bigger income for the few that run it.
Click to expand...
This type of narrative is beyond intellectually lazy.

Why don't you tell us how May should have solved the Irish border puzzle?
 
JoBBo said:
The exact same "logic" would also lead one to favor the United Kingdom leaving the World Trade Organization - as well as the United Nations, etc.
Click to expand...
Correct, and it does - more-so the WTO than UN because the UN is more of a forum for talking about things rather than doing things - part of why so many criticise it as useless. UN resolutions remain relatively toothless which is good considering the large players that are trying to use it for their own benefit.
As for the WTO - perhaps you have missed the last 3 decades of activism on the left but these huge trade deals have been consistently recognised as favouring huge transnationals over small local players. The world traded for centuries before these deals and organisations existed - they are not necessary for conducting trade. They actually exist to prevent local governments from protecting local businesses from outside predation and to prevent governments from trying to get new local businesses off the ground by subsidy.

Afterall, being in the World Trade Organization means that "evil dirty disgusting foreigners" can theoretically "outvote" the poor little United Kingdom. In fact, the only way to "take back the country" and "make Britain British again" is to cut off ALL trade with foreign nations.
Click to expand...
By now it should be apparent why I'm sympathetic to the first part of that statement, but why the second part does not follow. Cutting yourself off from all foreign trade is not the same as abrogating the WTO. You can still trade outside of WTO and you can still structure deals outside of WTO. Other nations can still voluntarily trade with you. Trade happened before WTO and EU and will happen after they are both gone.

Why don't you tell us how May should have solved the Irish border puzzle?
Click to expand...
May can't solve the Irish border issue because she doesn't want to. It remains to be seen whether it is actually a problem that needs to be solved. It's best to leave that outside of a deal then run the experiment and fiddle with things as we go forward. A lot of the urgency and importance of things is theoretical and posturing. The panic level has been raised on the population to try to stampede them into accepting less than they should - it's a sales tactic. This is a divorce, you don't have to have everything settled before you split. You have the whole future and things may change as you go. Everyone should be keeping options open, but the people who stand to lose considerable power and its attendant ability to amass wealth would really like to see something signed quickly that will protect their gravy train.
 
Robert said:
....................................
Suddenly a bunch of them no longer see the backstop as that big a problem.
The only conclusion that one can draw from that is that the PM standing aside - and, presumably, one of their members stepping in - is far more important to them than the Brexity things they claim are important to them.
So, yeah, it's useful to those guys and she knows it, which is why she offered it.
Click to expand...
UGH!

seriously, they all want to make me vomit
 
This is Greg Palast, the guy who documented the way the 200 election was swung for George W. Bush, who currently is working on dismantling the racial profiling disenfranchisement of minority voters that help Trump to victory (even though the Republicans never wanted him as their candidate), documented the crimes of BP from the Exxon Valdez to Deep Sea Horizon and beyond - and here is his take on the EU
https://twitter.com/x/status/1113120538455654400
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top